www.kiwisfirst.com

JUDGE (n.) A law student who marks his own papers - H.L. Mencken

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
- Abraham Lincoln

The Judge files contain background factual data on judges, as well as analysis which is more subjective in nature. Where analysis and opinion are provided, they are the considered and sole opinion of the editor. Information and news tips on judges can be sent to Spartan News Limited through various means listed on the 'Contact Us' page. Information may be submitted anonymously but it would be very helpful if reference or source background can be supplied along with information.

KIWIS FIRST

**************************

JUDGE LANCE CRIMINAL TRIAL

15 March 2010
Former Deputy Judge of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Michael Lance QC will face trial in the North Shore District Court on 24 March 2010 for willful vandalism. As first reported on kiwisfirst a year ago, Lance was witnessed "keying" the car of businessman Richard Cummins in front of the Judge's Browns Bay apartment by café patrons across the street. Despite the trial being set for months, the half dozen witnesses were only subpoenaed this weekend.

Further investigation of Judge Lance after his arrest uncovered a disturbing history of criminal conduct. This included similar incidents of vandalism where the Judge was questioned but never charged, as well as the Judge throwing a trial in Rotorua of a lawyer charged with fraud and blackmail years earlier. That lawyer, caught on tape trying to blackmail the detective prosecuting his drug-dealing client, turned out to be the business partner of the Judge's son Simon. Without disclosing the relationship, Lance had himself appointed trial judge and travelled down from Auckland to preside. In a brazen display of power, Lance J found the lawyer not guilty and then publicly castigated the police for prosecuting the lawyer. The lawyer cannot be named because Judge Lance additionally gave him name suppression.

Judge Lance's perversion of the course of justice in the criminal trial of his son's law partner occurred when Supreme Court Judge John McGrath was Solicitor General and Police Complaints Authority Judge Lowell Goddard was Deputy Solicitor General. Police hierarchy reported and detailed the corruption to the Solicitor General and deputy, but McGrath and Goddard concealed the evidence of Lance's criminal offending from the bench and dismissively stated at the time that prosecution of Judge Lance was "not in the public interest". At least one high ranking Police inspector quit out of disillusionment. The important news story was never reported by the NZ media.

Subsequent Official Information Act requests for this evidence held by the Crown Law office have been stonewalled by claims the evidence is protected by legal privilege. Appallingly, both Justice McGrath and Justice Goddard gave ringing endorsements to Judge Lance's subsequent promotion to Judge of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Judge Lance wasted no time claiming victory over the Police officials who had complained about his criminal conduct to no avail years earlier.

Years after McGrath and Goddard's cover-up of Judge Lance's criminal misconduct on the bench, Judge Lance successfully sued a radio talkbalk host Mark Bennett for defamation after the host called the Judge "idiotic".

Judge Michael Lance is currently retired. He is aggressively defending the charge but does not want a jury trial. The trial should prove interesting even if the New Zealand media are afraid to report it. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

SOLICITOR GENERAL CLAIMS HE IS VICTIM OF CONSPIRACY

15 September 2009
New Zealand Solicitor General David Collins is currently defending at least three unrelated complaints to the New Zealand Law Society for alleged legal misconduct. One is by kiwisfirst editor Vince Siemer, in relation to representations by Mr Collins to the Auckland High Court in January 2008. In brief, that complaint alleges Collins knowingly made false claims to initiate a contempt action that the www.kiwisfirst.com website was in breach of an interim injunction, despite his office conceding that the content was "fully compliant" with the injunction terms. The complaint also alleges that he deliberately misled Parliament by misrepresenting to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee in August 2007 that the matter was before the Courts - and thereby off limits from a Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Collins has responded by letter dated 3 September 2009 to Secretary of National Standards Committee Mary Ollivier that he considers he is the victim of a conspiracy by Mr Siemer and the other complainants. Presumably, on this basis, he refused to address the substance of the complaint and supporting evidence in the form of a 6 September 2007 email indicating his office agreed months before that the website was not in breach the injunction. Ironically Mr Collins used his response to threaten the Law Society with prosecution for contempt of Parliament if he considered the Law Society was "to collaterally challenge" the Select Committee's decision founded on what Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith had subsequently determined "may not have been correct". Dr Smith's conclusion was reached before he became aware of the documentary evidence that David Collins was personally involved in the deception of the Committee.

Collins elected to take a global position in his reply. He appended a copy of the resultant High Court Judgment ordering Siemer to six months prison for failing to "unconditionally close down" this website as defence that his actions in seeking Mr Siemer's imprison were appropriate. back to front page

COURT ORDER SILENCES CORONER AND CONCEALS FARDELL SUICIDE FROM PUBLIC

27 August 2007
Late in July 2007 it was revealed that Auckland High Court Justice Paul Heath ruled last December - more than a year after Robert Fardell QC (right) fell to his death from the 15 metre high Takapuna Head cliffs into the rocky surf at high tide - that the Auckland Coroner's findings and the evidence into the bizarre circumstances of Fardell's death would be largely suppressed. This Court ruling by Heath J followed prominent barrister Harry Waalken QC obtaining a restraining order in July 2006 preventing the Coroner from releasing his written report while the family sought a judicial review designed to censure and obscure the Coroner's findings. Unfortunately for Waalken, the cat had already been let out of the bag at a special inquest conducted at the Auckland Coroner's Court in June 2006. This was when Auckland Coroner Dr. Murray Jamieson issued an oral report stating Mr. Fardell died from drowning, with the post-mortem examination revealing drowning was precipitated by massive injuries consistent with a fall immediately prior.

With foul play and suicide the likely scenarios facing police officers responding to report of a lifeless body on the rocks, foul play must reasonably be ruled out simply on the response of police that day finding a middle-age man unexpectedly dead. What is known is that the police and ambulance response to the call of a body found 6:30 pm 11 December 2005 as the tide receded was unusually brief for an untimely and, presumably, uncertain cause of death. Although Mr. Fardell was 52 years old and in good health at the time he died, neither cordoning of the scene nor forensic analysis in-situ was apparently conducted. The ambulance crew left shortly after inspecting the top of the cliff above where the body was found. Moreover, as Fardell was an extremely heavy-set man who additionally had to breach a fence to reach the edge of the cliff, it is highly unlikely that his fall could have been an accident or murder in this area active with people enjoying the early summer weekend.

Nonetheless, Barrister Waalken vehemently pressed the Coroner that suicide was not a finding the Coroner could legally make - or even mention. While the Coroner seemed ultimately prepared to delicately acquiesce to Waalken's demands, Waalken's subsequent legal motions that the Coroner permanently seal the evidence and his finding were rejected outright by the Coroner as incompatible with the fundamental precept of transparent proceedings and justice. It is this ruling by the Coroner that has now been overturned by Auckland High Court Justice Heath.

There has been some speculation, unproven, that Mr. Fardell had a life insurance policy, the death benefit from which may have been lost if the Coroner's findings indicated suicide. However, it is more likely for reasons that will become apparent deeper in this story that, given the tremendous media exposure to the death, concerns were heightened within the judiciary that allowing the circumstances of the death to be made public would only increase the public's curiosity as to what drove Fardell to such self-destruction. It was anticipated that attention into the deceased's sordid personal and professional life would then raise legitimate and troubling questions as to how such a person could reach the pinnacle of the legal profession and be next in line for a judicial appointment while those in authority had turned a blind eye to numerous disturbing complaints concerning his professional conduct for several years leading up to his death.

In the days immediately following his death, the New Zealand Herald ran front page stories claiming that Mr. Fardell died of a heart attack while swimming - irresponsible news reporting easily dispelled by facts that were immediately available to any reporter interested in accuracy. Other than the location of the body on rocks hundreds of meters from the nearest beach, Mr. Fardell was not dressed for a swim as he walked away from his house for the last time. The inquest officer assigned to the case said the body was found with shorts and no shoes but that his experience was "articles of clothing quickly get separated from the body in the water". And as any viewer of CSI can tell you, there are definitive forensic tests to quickly determine whether someone has suffered a fatal heart attack.

The inquest officer, Paul Herman of the Takapuna Police, immediately realized that he was in over his head on this investigation. The last person to talk to the deceased was Chris Morris, son of (now retired) High Court judge David Morris. Chris Morris admitted to Herman that he had come to Fardell's home this Sunday afternoon to discuss pending legal matters with the deceased but declined to grant a formal interview or provide further detail. Same with the widow. Also, as the press was widely reporting that ten High Court judges had attended the funeral, the estate hired Barrister Harry Waalken QC, widely regarded as a legal Houdini on medical cases, to advance the family's position on the death - and stymie the investigation. Faced with such powerful stonewalling Mr. Herman did not need to be a genius to identify that careers are made or lost on how someone might handle himself in an investigation where a litany of prominent lawyers and judges were not only expressing a keen interest in his approach to the investigation but were simultaneously speaking out effusively in the press about what a great man of integrity Mr. Fardell was.

Mr. Fardell undoubtedly had many fine qualities, but integrity was not one of them. It didn't help that Mr. Herman quite quickly uncovered this darker side to the man. Herman casually revealed to a private investigator early in his investigation that an Asian gang Fardell had a falling out with were phoning him in an attempt to gain information. Within a month Herman was also informed that Fardell was being sued in the Auckland High Court for deceptive practices by former clients Paragon Oil Systems Limited and Vince and Jane Siemer, and that an application detailing allegations that Fardell three times perjured himself had been filed and served less than two weeks before his death. Adding insult to a potentially career-killing injury for Fardell was the fact that Hugh Williams, a judge whom Fardell considered dim-witted and vain and, hence, was an irresistible butt of his jokes, was, as judge in the case, going out of his way to unduly protect Fardell. Fardell was a proud man whose career and legitimate standing among his peers meant everything to him. This graft from an unlikely ally whom he had been all too quick to dismiss as unprofessional was a tremendous blow to his ego as much as an inescapable symbol of poetic justice.

Yet another former client, New Zealand inventor Hugh Price, was also embroiled in a legal battle against Fardell before he died. Mr. Price had years earlier obtained a ruling from the Lay Observer that overruled the Law Society's dismissal of a formal complaint he had lodged against Mr. Fardell for deceptive practices and seeming incompetence. Despite this ruling of the Lay Observer, the Law Society refused to act on the complaint. Now, in December 2005, Mr. Price was again challenging Fardell in a current case for acting in a conflict of interest capacity.

Topping off all this was Fardell's close personal and business relationship with powerful Auckland insolvency practitioner Michael Stiassny, a relationship he would come to ruefully regret in the weeks before his death   This was due in large part to (what Fardell was obviously convinced to be) an intentional release of information by his former friend that helped expose Fardell's legal scams. This information put Fardell's career at risk in addition to severely undermining his credibility. Whether this was the straw in the mountain of straw that broke the camel's back is difficult to say. However, given the significant betrayal by someone he had put so much trust in, it is not difficult to surmise this weighed heavily on Fardell as he solemnly walked to the precipice this otherwise sunny Sunday.   Ironically, as Stiassny was trustee of the Fardell family trust (Delfar Holdings Limited) at the time of his death Fardell could not escape his clutches even in death.

In this pressure cooker where the powerful legal community's obituary contrasted so sharply with the unfolding facts of the man's real life, Officer Herman did the only thing he considered safe under the circumstances - he went to ground. As the Coroner's representative, Officer Herman was responsible for publicizing the public inquest. Despite the tremendous number of contacts he had received from media and financially interested parties, Officer Herman informed only the widow and Harry Waalken QC of the public inquest that he had hastily convened barely 2 months after the death.

Officer Herman would arrogantly respond later to those who felt slighted by his subterfuge regarding the public inquest that he was under no obligation to inform interested parties of the date or setting. This was simply untrue. The Coroner's Act 1988 specifically required him to notify in advance parties who may have an interest in the inquest. In the winter of 2006 Judge Borrin issued a ruling on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority of New Zealand stating Herman was derelict in his obligations under the Act. The Coroner had earlier been compelled to conduct a special inquest due to Herman's railroading of the public one.

The year 2006 saw significant changes in law for the Coroner's Office. The 1988 Act was repealed in favour of the Coroner's Act 2006, which was passed into law in August 2006, and the establishment of the Coronial Services of New Zealand was formed on 1 July 2007. Perhaps this chaos explains why the Coroner - having a year earlier been ready to issue his written inquest findings before a cease and desist order of the Court prevented him from doing so - released his report on 20 July 2007, seven months after Judge Heath finally gave him the approval to do so - sans the evidence and guts of the report.  Perhaps the Coroner's delay was a demonstration of conscious indignation at the Court imposed coverup.

So it was that what started as a whitewash intended to be quickly disposed of in record time was eventually whitewashed by judicial order more than a year and a half after the fact. And when one reads the Coroner's brief final report, it is obvious that Mr. Waalken earned his substantial fees on this one. In legal speak, lawyers deceive by omission. This is obvious in this case when one reads the Coroner's two page report. This reporter's favorite line from that report is "No evidence was located to suggest that Mr. Fardell harboured any intention to commit suicide. Indeed, his work on forthcoming cases suggested to the contrary". It is as perverse as it is ironic that the Coroner could not write massive injuries from a fall directly contributed to the drowning but was encouraged to get into the highly speculative (let alone non-medical) realm of saying busy people do not have time to commit suicide. Read Coroner's censured report.

In obvious double-talk the new Coronial Services website states on its' front page, "The (new) Act was designed to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system." All too sadly, the net result has proven the opposite true. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

JUDGE HUBBLE HONOURS HUBBARD AS 'OCCUPIER' OF CITY BUILDINGS

11 September 2007
In a ruling handed down by Auckland District Court Justice GV Hubble today, the Judge recognized the Mayor as 'occupier' of 'the whole of the Council Chambers and its buildings' for the intent and purpose of the Trespass Act 1980. This means the Mayor has the absolute right in law, according to Judge Hubble, to order people removed from city buildings whose presence the Mayor decides to be objectional or disruptive - or if he has good reason to believe they might become so - so long as he does not act 'capriciously' in doing so.

Judge Hubble's ruling found community activist Penny Bright guilty of crimimal trespass and discharged her without sentence, saying that she was well meaning and had suffered enough. The case stems from a 23 November 2006 Council Meeting called under urgency to consider a new waterfront stadium in Auckland. Hubbard had denied Ms. Bright speaking rights at the meeting. Ms. Bright demonstrated her displeasure with the Mayor's refusal by displaying a 1 by 1.5 metre banner in the public gallery that read "Mayor Hubbard's DICKtatorship is a CEREAL matter - Don't Buy it". The Mayor demanded she put the banner away but Ms. Bright refused; this refusal prompting the Mayor to temporarily adjourn the meeting while he summoned Police. By the time Police came the banner was gone but, when Ms. Bright refused to leave the meeting, the Mayor had her arrested for trespassing. The stadium proposal pushed by Hubbard eventually failed. The case of criminal trespass against Ms. Bright was pursued by the Crown at the Mayor's urging.

The mild-mannered Hubble appeared reticient in issuing his judgment. His decision ran contrary to three previous District Court rulings that had favoured Ms. Bright in similar circumstances. Still Hubble remarkably praised Ms. Bright and, in response to Ms. Bright submissions ahead of the sentencing, said he agreed with all the points she made. The difference this time, according to the Judge, was the Mayor found the banner justifiably objectionable. The Judge agreed.

With his judgment today Hubble also strayed further than previous District Court judges in ruling the Mayor was the rightful 'occupier' of the City building and, as such, was within his right to demand people being disruptive or guilty of objectionable conduct be cited for criminal trespass if they failed to leave when ordered to do so. Paradoxically the Judge recognized the public's right to access public buildings and attend public meetings. He therefore qualified his judgment by stating the Mayor, as occupier, had this right "provided that occupier is not acting capriciously or on the basis of racial or other prejudice". Mayor Hubbard's actions, which included refusing Ms. Bright speaking rights on a number of previous and subsequent occasions, were apparently not deemed prejudicial by Judge Hubble due to His Honour's failure to mention this evidence in his judgment. The Judge also did not seem to mind that neither the Police constable nor Auckland Council Service's Manager Peter Burden could recall whether they had specifically issued a trespass warning to Ms. Bright before arresting her. The case included prosecution submissions and defense submissions

Given the stigma of a criminal conviction, Ms. Bright said she is determined to appeal Judge Hubble's decision. Back to front page

New Zealand Judge files

Information on New Zealand Judges compiled from public and private sources, including all information submitted by the judges themselves

YOUNG, Ronald Leslie

Professional Data
Postion & Titles:	Pres. Electoral Commission
Judge of:	New Zealand High Court, Wellington, 2001		Formerly a district court judge in Dunedin and Chief District Court judge in Wellington
Specializations and Professional Interests:	Litigation
Professional Comments:
Background / Education:	Graduated LLB from Otago University in 1974. He joined Dunedin law firm Mirams & Wilson in 1974 and in 1975 moved to Hamilton to the firm of McCaw Lewis Chapman. Justice Young became a partner of the firm in 1977 specialising exclusively in litigation until 1988 when he returned to Dunedin following appointment as a district court judge. In 1993 Justice Young moved to Wellington to take up the position of Chief District Court Judge and was appointed President of the Electoral Commission in 2000. He became a High Court judge in June 2001 and is based at the Wellington High Court.
Degrees:	LLB, Otago, 1974
Admitted to the Bar:	1974
Company Involvements:

Personal Data
Born:	1950(?) New Zealand	Sex:	Male
Married:	19	Children:
Interesting Relationships and Coincidences:
Miscellaneous:

THE INDIVISIBLE CROWN
Why NZ Citizens are Outcasts in their own Courts

23 July 2009
The Judicial and Crown Law oath starts with allegiance to the Crown and to do right by all people.  In recent years, a substantial body of case law has evolved within New Zealand which asserts rights which conflict with the interests of the Crown (defined as government entities and those acting on behalf of those entities) are to be subjugated. The implications have had some disturbing, real life consequences which are not being widely reported. This includes not being reported by the public courts. The precedents increasingly restrict criticism of government and government officials. They range from employment law and state custody of children to the dissemination of information in the public interest. Lawyers who do not subscribe to the provincial view are being ostracized, fined and even denied a certificate.

University Campuses in democracies are traditionally bastions of free thought and speech. This distinction is what sets democracies apart from totalitarian regimes perhaps more than any other. But there appears little room for philosophical non-conformity in New Zealand law schools. A case in point. Wellington man Peter Zohrab graduated from Victoria University Law School in 2005. His academic background had been noteworthy. He was awarded a Junior scholarship, the Erasmus Scholarship, Rankin-Brown Prize and achieved a BA Honours degree in Linguistics from the University of York before graduating with a Masters in Law later in life.

Unlike his 20 year old law school classmates, Zohrab had some life experience. In his case, it culminated in some radical views in support of men's rights, views which the Law School administration objected to. Dean Matthew Palmer was particularly disturbed by an open letter Mr Zohrab wrote to then-Governor General Sylvia Cartwright blasting her for criticizing Maori tradition which prohibited women from speaking during official ceremonies on the marae. On this basis, the Dean would not support Mr Zohrab's "fitness" application for admission as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand. His application to become a lawyer was denied. Zohrab still finds a painful irony in his law school indoctrination that "lawyers lie", while his character was deemed unworthy to be a NZ lawyer because of his honest (and lawful) opinions.

"You cannot sue the Crown" is a common claim by NZ Judges when throwing out cases. Even the New Zealand Law Society subscribes to the position that "ex gratia" payments - discretionary payments borne of kindness and without accepting liability - are all someone wronged by the government or government officials can hope to expect. Perhaps it is this resultant sense of invincibility by those acting in a Crown capacity which lies at the root of an explosion of attempted litigation in recent years. The situation has become so bad that Court Registrars are being instructed to reject filings before they enter the system. Legal aid applications are denied simply because the proposed defendant acted in a Crown role. Claims that successfully run this gauntlet are often encumbered by discretionary security costs orders which must be paid by the plaintiff into the Court before a hearing is allowed. Finally, lawyers are being personally threatened with action by the Judges if they press cases against the Crown.

Take the case of Evgeny Orlov, a human rights lawyer in Auckland. In 2005, Orlov brought a legal claim against New Zealand Child Youth and Family Services (CYFS) on behalf of a woman who had her nursing baby taken from her. A CYFS' psychologist had diagnosed the woman as mentally unfit. Equipped with the accurate medical evaluation that the woman was well other than suffering from diabetes and gluten-intolerance, Mr Orlov considered he had a case in law to make before Justice Rhys Harrison in the Auckland High Court. Justice Harrison thought differently. The Judge declared the Crown could not be sued in such a case, threw the case out and ordered his Judgment not to be published.   The woman is still seeking custody of her child, who remains in the care of the State.

Last year, Orlov and another lawyer, Frank Deliu, brought a case on behalf of a family whose three children were ordered seized without a hearing. CYFS claimed in an ex-parte application that the father was an alcoholic and the children were in imminent danger, despite no evidence the children had been abused. When counsel for the parents sought a defended hearing and cross-examination of the sole CYFS worker whose affidavit underpinned the order to seize their children, Judge Rogers of the Family Court criticized the lawyers for their virulent attack of CYFS's actions, then declared she was denying the parents a hearing because of their lawyers' "attitude".

The Judicial Review which claimed the parents had been deprived reasonable access to the Court by Rogers J's ruling saw Harrison J again presiding. Judge Harrison threw this appeal out too, and forbade publication. In doing so Harrison angrily denounced the foreign-born Orlov for not grasping "how things are done in New Zealand". When the lawyers responded that a similar excuse was used to justify the "lost generation" of aboriginal people in Australia, the Judge retaliated by ordering the lawyers must personally pay over $11,000 in costs to the Crown. Orlov made his own complaint against the Judge, stating, among other things, the Judge had no request for costs from Crown counsel. Judge Harrison made a complaint to the Auckland District Law Society that Mr Orlov be professionally disciplined or struck off as a lawyer in New Zealand. This is consistent with the judicial tradition in New Zealand that lawyers who do not subscribe to the Crown view are to be kept busy defending themselves against the system.

Mr Orlov appealed to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, which refused to take a position as "intervener" in the public interest. This is appalling for two reasons. Costs ordered by Courts against lawyers who are guilty only of doing what is best for their clients within the confines of the law constitute a general threat to lawyers taking unpopular cases - and are therefore extremely dangerous in any law-respecting democracy. More importantly, Judge Harrison was reckless enough to state in his judgment that his punitive costs order was a result of the political views expressed by the lawyers, a violation of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The parents appealed Judge Harrison's dismissal. They are asking for the right to sue the Crown for breach of their rights to natural justice under s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This appeal (R.L. v Chief Executive of Social Development and others) was heard by the Court of Appeal yesterday. The bench of Young P, Chambers J and Lang J took no notes during the 2 ¼ hour hearing. Young and Chambers J bristled over submissions that monetary damages would be sought for the two years the couple have been deprived their children. Taking Harrison J's lead, Attorney General Chris Finlayson has asked for further costs against the parents' lawyers if they lose their appeal. The Court reserved its decision.

Mssrs Orlov and Deliu have refused to speak publicly because of warnings this will result in further professional action against them. Court whistle-blowers from Dr Rob Moodie to Member of Parliament Nick Smith can attest to the wrath which comes from releasing accurate information which the Courts prefer to remain hidden. Both were charged with contempt for revealing accurate information which contradicted the "official" court record.

Yet another recent case which should give every citizen pause is the dismissal of Nelson lawyer Sue Grey as a Department of Conservation lawyer last year.   By every account Ms Grey was a capable lawyer who performed her duties with DoC in exemplary fashion. Ms Grey's DoC position allowed her to continue with a few existing clients. When the Sunday Star Times ran a story last spring that a client she was acting as instructing solicitor for was prosecuting a case against the NZ Attorney General for alleged undisclosed conflict of interest by a Court of Appeal Judge, Solicitor General David Collins phoned up her boss to give her the ultimatum to drop her client or be dismissed.

Grey's subsequent challenge to her dismissal was heard before the Employment Relations Authority earlier this year. In its decision out this month, the ERA upheld her dismissal, stating "An essential requirement of every employee in government departments is the duty of loyalty to both his/her immediate employer and the Crown of which the Department is an integral part. The citing of a Minister of the Crown in any matter before the Court... must constitute a palpable breach of the duty of loyalty. No matter this caveat is not explicitly enshrined in the employment agreement. It is one of the fundamental plinths underpinning the business of government." ERA Member Paul Montgomery's unequivocal ruling is as worrisome as it is problematic. Montgomery works for the Crown.  But his role as adjudicator of the employment complaint was publicly and offiically portrayed as impartial. By boldly stating his overriding duty was of loyalty to the Crown, he denied Ms Grey her right to natural justice consistent with the manner the Crown portrays such hearings. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

The Kiwis First forum, the kiwisfirst.co.nz website, pages, content and any Internet mirror thereof are the works of SPARTAN NEWS LIMITED, a New Zealand Registered News Media Company. Copyright Notice & Disclaimer.

©2007 SPARTAN NEWS LIMITED.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln